It sucks when you have a bad teacher! I'm lucky that the teacher I have for psych is amazing and so helpful, but one of my 2 biology teachers (so half the course, plus half the retake im doing) is awful and to say we dont get on would be an understatment, so trying to self teach half the exams for that! so i feel your pain! good luck

Thank you so much! Literally anything you find would be great help I know! Awh i completely understand what you mean but im sure your going to do great & thanks again your a life saver!

(Original post by Smilie :))
Thank you so much! Literally anything you find would be great help I know! Awh i completely understand what you mean but im sure your going to do great & thanks again your a life saver!

would anyone mind having a look through this relationships essay?
my teacher says im really bad at elaborating so tried hard to in this, but is it enough and is there and would you add anything?
thanks

Outline and evaluate one or more explanations for the maintenance of romantic relationships (25)

Two theories that attempt to explain the maintenance of romantic relationships are the Social Exchange Theory and the Equity Theory.

The Social Exchange Theory (SET) states that when in a relationship individual attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs. Rewards could come in the form of security, companionship and sex while cost could include abuse, boredom and missed opportunities (with other potential partners). Individuals weigh up the benefits of their relationship against the costs and if the rewards are greater the relationship is maintained. Thibaut and Kelly (1959) proposed a four-stage model explaining long-term relationships. The first stage is sampling where individuals compare the costs and rewards of their current relationship to previous ones, next is bargaining where rewards are exchanges to test whether the relationship is worthwhile. The third stage is commitment where rewards become predictable and individuals begin to settle in to the relationship and finally institutionalisation occurs when norms are established. If a couple is successfully able to move through these stages Thibaut and Kelly claim that their relationship will be maintained.

This theory has support from Simpson (1990) giving it wider academic credibility. Simpson asked participants (pps) to rate pictures of the opposite sex and it was found that individuals who were in a relationship gave a lower rating than those who were not. This shows support for the theory as the findings suggest that that the pps valued their current relationship as otherwise they would terminate their relationship when someone with a better comparison level comes along. Yet there is evidence to suggest that the SET is too simplistic. Duck and Sant claim that there is too much focus on the individual’s perspective, which has meant that the social aspects of relationships (such as how partners talk to each other) have been ignored by the theory. This makes the theory inadequate. Aronson (1999) also takes this stance as he believes that judging a relationship by profit or loss is not realistic, rather increases in rewards will better explain how relationships are maintained. Thus showing that relationships are far more complex than the SET suggests.

Walster et al updated the SET in 1978 to give the Equity Theory as it was felt that profit in a relationship is less important than fairness. This theory claims that in a relationship people strive to achieve fairness and will become distressed if unfairness is perceived. Equity does not necessarily mean equality, rather balance and stability. The Equity Theory states that within a relations partners with negotiate the distributed of rewards so that neither partner feels hard-done by – if this is achieved the relationship will be maintained.

While there is some support for the theory such as Hatfield (1972) who interviewed 500 students and found that those who were in inequitable relationships were more likely to be terminated 3 months later, evidence is insufficient as for example this study lacks population validity. The sample is small and uses only students. A student may behave in a different way to an adult within a relationship and so the results cannot be generalised to the whole population. There is also a wealth of evidence against the theory.

It has been suggested that the equity theory is deterministic. This is because it assumes that all romantic relationships are maintained because of economics. Clark and Mills argue that there are differences in relationships, for instance some are communal where rather than weighing up whether their relationship is equitable some individuals just strive to respond to the needs of their partner.

It has also been argued that both the Equity Theory and the SET are not theories of maintenance at all but dissolution. Argyle claims that people do not begin to consider the rewards and costs of their relationships until they become dissatisfied and consider leaving the commitment and so the theories better explain how relationships end. It can therefore be concluded that neither the SET or the Equity theory provide adequate explanations of the maintenance of romantic relationships as they are too narrow and fail to explain the complexities of relationships.

(Original post by popthecorn)
Hi guys, I'm doing
Relationships
Intelligence in learning
Cognitive Development
doesn't really seem like lot of people do the last two:/?
Its my first time doing A2 paper this summer and its the last chance ahhh!!
So scared, I wonder if revision from now will be enough... Good luck to all of you!

I do Cognitive Development if ever you want to exchange note or need some help, I could try

(Original post by sweet&petitee)
ahhh im sure you can yehhh, i like to do that for generic psych essay plans just trying to complete all my notes & then ill probs do that, its a great way to highlight links etc

quick question:
it says that only unit 3 and section B from unit 4 awards marks of issues, debates and approachs with unit 4 section A not awarding these marks. What does this actually mean? Does it mean that when i answer my question on schizophrenia i cant bring alternative aprroachs or summin...? Plus what does it actually mean by issue, debates and approachs - i think i kno but jus wnna b certian. Also if a qestion asks u to explain is that refering to A01, Ao2 or A03???

also it says that nxt yr the spec is changing n they are gunna remove androgeny, eisenberg prosocial, low self esteem in addiction - do you think this wll increase or decrease the chances of questions on this section of the topic comin up this june??/

(Original post by StudentToday)
quick question:
it says that only unit 3 and section B from unit 4 awards marks of issues, debates and approachs with unit 4 section A not awarding these marks. What does this actually mean? Does it mean that when i answer my question on schizophrenia i cant bring alternative aprroachs or summin...? Plus what does it actually mean by issue, debates and approachs - i think i kno but jus wnna b certian. Also if a qestion asks u to explain is that refering to A01, Ao2 or A03???

also it says that nxt yr the spec is changing n they are gunna remove androgeny, eisenberg prosocial, low self esteem in addiction - do you think this wll increase or decrease the chances of questions on this section of the topic comin up this june??/

So our tutor has left us to teach ourselves and it's getting close to the exam, just wondering if anyone has any revision notes for either eating behaviour, relationships or cognition and development as we've been given nothing but the textbook which doesn't sum up anything very well.
Any help would b much appreciated! Thanks!

(Original post by kittyminkyx)
what do people think is likely to come up?

I have a good feeling that evolution might come up but there is no logic just hope
Maintenance and dissolution have a good chance as formation already came up in Jan, although ther are randomly selected I donbt think that they will put in two same topics in the same year.